The King against The Inhabitants of Clifton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 1802 |
| Date | 03 February 1802 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 333
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against the inhabitants of clifton. Wednesday, Feb.'3d, 1802. An appointment of one overseer alone for a township is bad in law; the stat. 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12, requiring at least two: and a certificate granted by such overseer is void, and gives no security to'the certificated parish against the gaining of a settlement there by the party named therein; such certificate not being made pursuant to the stat. 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30, wtiich requires it to be made " by the churchwardens and overseers, or the major part, or by the overseers, where there are no churchwardens." Two justices by an order removed J. Hollis, his wife and children by name, from the township of Clifton to the township of Yieldersley, both in the county of Derby. The sessions on appeal quashed-the order, subject to the opinion of this Court, on the following case: " E. Hollis, the father of the pauper J. Hollis, in the year 1780 went with his family to reside at Yieldersley, under a certificate dated the 18th November 1780, under the hand and seal of J. Warrington, only overseer of the poor of the township of Sturston in the parish of Ashborne in the said county, and duly allowed by two justices, acknowledging the said E. H., Hannah his wife, and Joseph their child (the pauper) to be inhabitants legally settled in Sturston. The said E. H. with his family resided at Yieldersley under the said certificate about a year, when he returned to Sturston with his family, except the pauper Joseph^ who was then only two years old, who was left with his grandfather in Yieldersley, with whom he resided till he was sixteen years old, when he was hired and served a year in Yieldersley. The parish of Ashborne consists of five townships, viz. Yieldersley, Sturston, Clifton, Offcote, and Ashborne. The townships severally maintain their own poor, and have separate and distinct overseers. The parish of Ashborne has two churchwardens, who are appointed for the parish at^large. At the [169] time of granting the above certificate J. Warringtpn was the only overseer appointed for the township of Sturston during that year. There has been generally only one overseer appointed for the township of Sturston ; though in some few instances there have been two. There has always been a sufficient number of inhabitants to have appointed two overseers. Balguy and Clarke in support of the order of sessions. The question is, whether, there having been but one overseer appointed for the township of Sturston at the time, a certificate made by that one be not binding on the township? or in other words, whether the township be not estopped from disputing-the legality of it in this mode of proceeding? It was contended below, first, that the churchwardens of the parish of Ashborn,e, in which this township is situated, ought to have joined in granting the certificate. That might have been necessary under the stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2,' s. 1, compared with the Certificate Act 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30, if this had been a certificate granted by the parish at large; because by the former statute " the churchwardens of every parish, together with 4, 3, or 2, substantial householders there," are appointed overseers of the poor; and by the latter statute, the certificate is to be "under the hands and seals of the churchwardens and overseers of the parish, township, or place, 334 THE KING 'v. CLIFTON 2 EAST, 170, or the major part of them," &c. But this is not the ease of an overseer appointed under the Statute of Elizabeth, but under the stat, 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12, which directs the appointment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against Marsh
...: churchwardens of a parish have no right of interference with the poor of individual townships within the parish : Rex v. Clifton (2 East, 168), Rex v. Nantwich (16 East, 228). Enactments have been made expressly enabling overseers appointed in townships to do the duty of churchwardens the......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of the Borough of Leominster
...intendraents made in favour of the fact of the character are all instances where the presumption was (c) 6 T. R. 552. See Bex v. Clifton, 2 East, 168, 175. 1394 THE QUEEN V. LEOMINSTER B Q. B. 849. against the parties supposed to hold such character, or the parish represented by them ; and ......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Woodland
...and Company for Smelting down Lead, &c. v. Richardson and Others^ 3 Burr. 1341; (V) Cowp. 451. (c) 3 Term Eep. 480. (d) Ante, 1 vol. 534. 2 EAST, 168. THE KING V. CLIFTON 333 Lawrence J. I consider the case of Bex v. Alberbury as having decided this point: but if this be a mine, the subject......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Whitchurch
...This is a bad certificate; and if it be so, then it is clear that it cannot conclude the parish of St. Mary Bourne. Rex v. Clifton (2 East, 168), Rex v. St. Mary Westport (3 T. R. 44), Bex v. Wootten St. Lawrence (Burr. S. C. 581), Bex v. Tamworth (Burr. S. C. 770), Bex v. Margam (1 T. K. 7......